Artifacts on image, some ideas please.

[footman]

I dug out some exposed film from a TP meet a couple of years ago and had them processed. The roll from my Contax IIA has come back with weird artefacts:



Ideas gratefully received.

 

[excalibur2]

Have you look on the neg with a loupe?

 

[footman]

Have you look on the neg with a loupe?

No I haven't but I will do so. Cheers.

 

[Cuchulainn]

That could be a still from an old episode of Doctor Who! It's quite a cool effect!

 

[footman]

That could be a still from an old episode of Doctor Who! It's quite a cool effect!

Independence Day came to my mind! Or it could be the façade behind which the Lizard People lurk.

 

[abdoujaparov]

Reticulation, maybe?

 

[Mr Bump]

looks realy good

 

[FreeloaderJoe]

I would be asking how to repeat that!

 

[Cuchulainn]

Reticulation, maybe?

It looks too large scale for any of the reticulation I've seen. I used to get it on Neopan 400 before getting paranoid with keeping my stop, fix and wash temperatures within a few degrees of each other. For that emulsion, the reticulation looked like a crazy paving pattern, with each tile being maybe 20-30 times the size of the grain in the image (so quite small).

 

[footman]

^ interesting thanks, but I had to check what reticulation was first!
The processor thought it was maybe something to do with sudden temperature change as when you take a camera from a cold to very warm atmosphere or vice-versa.

 

[Jon Kincaid]

I took a film out of an old camera and the emulsion looked like crazy paving, and that's before developing. I assumed that it wasn't worth developing in that state, so dumped it, was I right?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is fungus tracks in the gelatine emulaion layer.
not uncommon in old film processed or not.

 

[Jon Kincaid]

It is fungus tracks in the gelatine emulaion layer.
not uncommon in old film processed or not.

Oh right, I assumed it was a heat thing. If I come across it again, is it worth going ahead and processing or just dump it?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The fungus is quite random in how it spreads. Some times it expands out from centre points. And leaves other areas clear.
you would never know till the film is processed.

 

[Jon Kincaid]

The fungus is quite random in how it spreads. Some times it expands out from centre points. And leaves other areas clear.
you would never know till the film is processed.

I noticed on the leader and when I wound it on the the reel for the tank I noticed that there was also the crazing on the small bit left on the spool, so it sacrificed the film to have a look in the light and the whole roll was affected.

I thought that the emulsion had dried up so it would have just flaked away in the chems which is why I didn't bother developing but do you think it would have developed with a crazy paving design across each frame?

 

[footman]

Interesting stuff, only hope I haven't introduced fungus into my Contax!
I haven't had time to check out the negs yet, I'll try tomorrow. Thanks for all the replies.

 

[Cuchulainn]

Interesting stuff, only hope I haven't introduced fungus into my Contax!

I wouldn't worry about that too much - fungal spores are everywhere. Keeping the camera in a moist environment will encourage them to grow, keeping it somewhere relatively cool and dry will keep it in good condition.

 

[StephenM]

You can see an example of reticulation here.